This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

This is a section from the Fascism article. I've taken see also, references and external links along, some of the entries can probably be removed. I've made all country entries into subsections, but now we have titles containing links. Please fix unless I have done so already. Also consider whether cleanup tag is still needed and introduction can probably better.

Huh, forgot the c in Fascism but someone conveniently created a redirect for it. Piet 20:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I've though about a shorter name but didn't find anything better. If you do, go ahead. The ones I didn't like included "International fascism" as that seems like one movement, "Fascism internationally", "Worldwide fascism", ... Piet 19:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Belgium was a democracy so I would move the Belgian section to "democratic nations". OTOH There was probably a puppet government under the occupation, but the movements described played a role when Belgium was still a democracy. I'm hesitating, comments? Piet 19:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I don't really think occupation regimes should be in this. They were not movements and rarely had any popular support, and some were not really even fascist, like Vichy France. I think we should have this:

Section on U.S. from Fascism and ideology. I oppose the proposed section merger. There is already a short section on this page. The entire contention that the US was or is fascist has almost no serious scholalrly support. The public debate on this matter is miniscule. Fascism and ideology was created in part to allow marginal right-wing, libertarian, and other views about fascism in the US to have a home here on Wikipedia. If we are talking about serious mainstream scholarship, the one paragraph on this page is sufficient.--Cberlet 13:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that any one article should be set aside for any POV; but, if we are to do such a thing, we should at the very least make the POV absolutely clear in the article name itself. We could move the section to Libertarian perspectives on the New Deal, for example. Otherwise, we should eliminate the libertarian POV and integrate any meaningful content in this present article. -- Nikodemos 19:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, after reviewing the section in question, I do not believe it is POV. Granted, it discusses a marginal viewpoint at length - so it may be giving it undue weight - but it is certainly not biased in favor of that viewpoint. I have reorganized it slightly and integrated it into this article. -- Nikodemos 02:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Gee, that's a relief. For a moment I was worried that you might actually discuss my comments.--Cberlet 03:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but wasn't my first comment a reply to yours? You made the following points: (1) public debate on the matter of the New Deal being fascist is minuscule; (2) Fascism and ideology was meant in part to appease the crowd of libertarian POV-pushers who kept trying to impose their POV on other fascism articles. My replies were: (1) true, but we have to discuss that marginal POV somewhere, and this article seems like the most logical choice; (2) POV-pushers should never be appeased if we can help it. You are an extremely valuable contributor on far-right issues and I wish we could work together. -- Nikodemos 05:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I have added {{pov-section}} to the section under discussion, as it over-represents fringe views on the subject. Jkelly 19:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan is not marginal: "Reagan says many New Dealers wanted fascism." New York Times. December 22, 1981. Cberlet's viewpoints are marginal. --Timeshifter 19:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That quote might belong at fascist (epithet). I hope that you are not seriously offering it as a thoughtful expert perspective on international fascism. Jkelly 20:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You missed my point. I don't agree with that viewpoint of Ronald Reagan. But I don't delete viewpoints I disagree with. That would be against NPOV. By the way, that viewpoint is pretty common in the Republican Party. --Timeshifter 20:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Really? I've never heard Bertie Ahern say anything remotely like that. Seriously, the ideology of United States politicians is certainly a valid matter of encyclopedic summary, but belongs at Fascism and ideology, not as a serious consideration of historical international fascism. Jkelly 20:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Nikodemos gets what I am saying. He just created this page: The New Deal and corporatism. People discussed this issue back then, and they continue to discuss these issues today. The Republicans have frequently railed against the New Deal. The comparisons of economic corporatism or corporativism (or similar words) between Italy and the USA have long roots. Some people take it as far as fascism. Usually it is people on the left though who make the fascism comparison today. See War Corporatism. But some people on the right have made that comparison too. And there actually was a coup attempt in the works at one point during Roosevelt's time. From the right. So all of it is relevant. And this is actual history, not just ideology. It makes much less sense when the history is separated from the ideology. Corporatism is a word with multiple meanings. It is a word that is getting much more use by both the right and the left. The job of an encyclopedia is to show those verifiable definitions and viewpoints, not to judge them, nor to pigeonhole them for use exclusively by the right or the left. --Timeshifter 01:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

<-----It might make editing easier, Timeshifter, if you did not assume JKelly is a clueless newbie. A major problem with your edits, is that they do not take into account what fascism-related pages a number of other editors have spent months juggling text around on in order to avoid duplication and to keep coherent and focused. Please stop lecturing us on how to edit an encyclopedia. It is what we are all doing. Your superior tone and aggressive opinionated style makes it hard for me to find a way to edit collaboratively in a way that you do not dismiss as my utter ignorance or failure to appreciate your consumate skills. Sometimes it is not that we have missed your point...it is because we think you are wrong and have failed to do your homework.--Cberlet 17:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like projection on your part, Cberlet. Note your smug, underhanded-insult on the talk page today for War Corporatism. Note my reply, too. And stop playing the gamesmanship in trying to set people against each other. Jkelly can speak for himself. You have been the one doing the aggressive editing, blanking, moving parts of stuff around, and deleting other parts. I moved stuff at Nikodemos request from the Corporatism page to this page. You also wanted that stuff moved off the Corporatism page. I then rewrote the remaining short section on the Corporatism page to meet the needs of Nikodemos concerning relevance to the page. You then just deleted the rewrite and put back the old problematic stuff. Yeah, you really know how to collaborate. Next time I suggest you edit rather than delete. That is what I did. I further edited that section. At one point you wanted that whole section deleted, so I was really surprised when you put back the problematic stuff. Maybe because you had originally written the problematic stuff? Anyway, I further rewrote the problematic stuff, too, and incorporated it in the section. --Timeshifter 21:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not make edits just to make a point. We disagree on what is a useful and constructive edit. We disagree on what is, and is not, problematic text. We disagree on when quoted text is needed or overly detailed. We all could have tried to coordinate better. There was much duplication of text, and text that now is better integrated on other pages. Nikodemos did most of this work, and should be thanked for it. I did not intentionally post a "smug, underhanded-insult" on the War Corporatism page. I asked for a reputable published cite, since after an extensive search the term appears to be from one homemade internet animation video. Hardly a notable source for a term in an encyclopedia. Your personal attacks are getting more detailed and nasty. Please consider cooling off.--Cberlet 21:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22war+corporatism%22 - The Google search pulls up 17,300 web pages using the term "war corporatism." 17,300 web pages do not point back to a video. I made no personal attack. And I was not rude. I only pointed out your rudeness. Pointing out someone else's rudeness is not rudeness. People can decide for themselves by going to the talk page: Talk:War Corporatism --Timeshifter 23:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

p.s., Jkelly is a Wikipedia administrator, who deserves a bit more respect than this subject line: "revert blanking by Jkelly who has no previous edits on this page. Roosevelt is not accused of fascism. Fascism and corporatism are not the same thing. If you had more edits here you would understand."--Cberlet 21:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I stand by that edit comment. It is not rude. I have discussions with admins on various wikipedia pages. We get along fine. I speak my mind. I do not insult. --Timeshifter 23:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I was going to respond to this by noting that we really expect everyone to be treated with respect, administrator or not. It is probably worth pointing out, however, that administrators, and especially members of the m:OTRS team, might be making unusual edits for reasons which have nothing to do with their personal editorial discretion, but due to concerns over, for instance, copyright infringement, removing the contributions of banned user, or as a response to any number of other problems. Ideally, such editing should be clearly indicated at such, and that definitely wasn't the case here. Nevertheless, there are real, practical reasons why one should adopt a practice of Wikipedia:Assume good faith and discussing instead of repeatedly reverting, and edit summaries such as the one Cberlet quotes above are inappropriate under any circumstance. Jkelly 23:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I am quite capable of apologizing. But what exactly am I apologizing for? Do Wikipedia admins get to delete large parts of a section without being questioned on it? As you said "such editing should be clearly indicated at such, and that definitely wasn't the case here." All I saw was deletion. Nikodemos and I had done multiple editing on this page. Cberlet had one previous edit. You had none. I am quite willing to listen to other admins on this issue also. But what wikipedia guideline have I broken? Wikipedia:Assume good faith also says "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." Only now do I learn you are an admin. So now I have more trust in your edits. In any case the issue has been resolved because people took it to the talk page. I have been taking it to the talk page a lot more than Cberlet. Look at the Corporatism talk page where all this started. My edit comment "If you had more edits here you would understand" may have been short, but edit comment space is limited. For that shortness I apologize. I should have added the 2 words, "See talk." --Timeshifter 23:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Timeshifter, I regret having set you off with my ponderous and sometimes snippy style, but you have now turned this into an unrelenting series of personal attacks. I apologize if I have insulted you, please stop insulting me.--Cberlet 23:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I still do not honestly know how I have insulted you, though. By questioning you? Tell me how I have insulted you, please. This is a serious request. --Timeshifter 00:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a proposal. I propose that we all try to take things to talk before major changes, or abrupt changes. For example; deletions of material. Or mergers. Or reversions of good-faith rewrites. I suggest editing first, before deletions or reversions. If deletions, reversions, or mergers are still felt necessary, then I suggest first going to talk for a day or two. --Timeshifter 00:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Fringe theories abound for fascism. Reliable sources will be required for all statements. Rjensen 12:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Published material cannot be deleted simply because an editor detests the percieved political POV...as you well know.--Cberlet 13:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

there is no reliable source--no historian or reference book accepts the oddball claim of Smedley Butler--a man of the far left--that big business decided on him to lead a march on washington and become America's dictator. (Butler said he was told that by a salesman). Let's get real. But in any case Wiki insists on reliable sources. Rjensen 13:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

General note: When you object to a specific piece of content, please remove that specific content rather than entire paragraphs. Also, please make sure that your edits do not disturb the flow of the text (for instance, if you remove a paragraph, you may also have to remove the words "however" or "on the other hand" from the beginning of the following paragraph). -- Nikodemos 06:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen, if you wish to exclude Butler's claims because he was "far left", shouldn't we also exclude the claims of extreme libertarians and conservatives regarding the alleged ties between the New Deal and fascism? -- Nikodemos 08:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

yes that's a good point--I think those claims are false and are made out of ignorance or spite (not research). As for Butler he is a joke--does anyone believe big business would choose a far left anti-biz anti-bank character like Butler as dictator? Hundreds of scholars have looked at his tatements and I think no reliable source believes that nonsense. Rjensen 08:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

We need to retain at least mentions of both. Butler was hardly "far left" when he was approached. This is a rewriting of history. Please name the hundreds of scholars who have dismissed Butler's claims (at least a few). Some scholars find the evidence weak, but there are others who say at least part of the story seems to bear up under scrutiny. Just because you do not like the authors who support the claim, there are several published books that discuss it it seriously. Your aggressive POV on this matter is not constructive, Rjensen.--Cberlet 16:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Butler had been violently denouncing bankers for over a year when he was "approached" by big business to become their leader and dictator. Imaagine that! There is no evidence anyone except a lowly salesman approached him. The point is that all historians and ref works dismiss this as a hoax --what scholars believe it???? Let's be critical and not believe the stuff you see on the web. Wiki REQUIRES reliable sources. Rjensen 17:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the text after Rjensen's latest revert. It isn't obvious to me that this doesn't deserve a mention, and Rjensen's comments above don't seem to match up well against the well-sourced discussion of different viewpoints in the Business Plot article being linked to. Is there any reason, beyond the personal experience of editors, to think that this material is more fringe than the "Roosevelt was a crypto-fascist" argument? Jkelly 09:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

the issue is reliable sources. No reference book or history book or textbook or biography accepts this fringe theory. The fact that it was published by a fringe publisher 50 years ago and NOT accepted by any experts weighs against it. One ex general claimed that he planned to overthrow FDR He implicated a salesman as the key thinker. This does not exactly compare with Mussolini Rjensen 09:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Several published works discuss the claims by Butler, and it is not appropriate to simply delete them. Rjensen is welcome to dispute the claims by citing other published works that question Butler's claims. I agree that the Butler material falls into the same category as "Roosevelt was a crypto-fascist" claims from the libertarians, but I defend including mentions of both. That is what encyclopedias do with well-known marginal theories--mention them.--Cberlet 14:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

<----lets see the citations to these several published works....the issue is RELIABLE source...a source that is accepted by reference works like Wiki. ALL material has to come from a verified secondary source.

Preposterous misrepresentation of Wiki guidelines is most amusing.--Cberlet 19:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is highly unverified if it is listing O Estado Novo as bieng "quasi-fascist". Being a Portuguese, and fascist myself and having members of my family who were members of the party/military and even close to Salazar I have to say nothing is further from the truth. Salazar adapted many of Mussolini's ideas into his system and also based it moderately on Franco's Falangist regime. I am fed up of seeing Nazism always thrown in just because the Nazis were allied to the Italian, Spanish and Portuguese. Do you see us constantly brandishing the Soviets as Capitalists? no, because even though they were allied with the U.S. they didn't adhere to the systematic doctrine that the U.S. was preaching. So in short the information regarding O Estado Novo is incorrect, it was, and will always be considered a Fascist regime by Portuguese nationalists and loyalists, get your facts straight. And the overall poor attempt of an apologetic tone for this article is pathetic, "not as restrictive as the Italian, Spanish and Nazi regimes", who the Hell is writing this? I can only imagine a pro-democracy anti-Fascist. Piecraft 12:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that you are confused and not just looking to start arguments on the internet. Wikipedia articles are written according to WP:NPOV, which instructs us to present mainstream positions on our subjects, mention significant minority viewpoints, and leave out fringe ones. Being a fascist, you are very unlikely to see your point of view represented at all in Wikipedia articles, as it is definitely a fringe position. Because just about every reliable source we could use to write our encyclopedic synthesis from is written by pro-democracy anti-fascists, our articles are certainly going to present that as a position one takes for granted. If you have reliable sources to point us to in order to expand or clarify our coverage of modern or historical fascist movements in Portugal, please do provide them. That would be helpful. Jkelly 18:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Following the defeat of Fascism in 1945, few serious politicians identify themselves with Fascism. However, the Peronistas in Argentina and the Falange in Lebanon both could be considered continuations of Fascism, and acknowledged a connection to earlier Fascist parties. Also, there are similarities between many right-wing dictatorships and Fascism. --The Four Deuces (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Soman, I reverted the section on fascism in Egypt. REliable facts, however unflattering, are not biased, and should not be censored from Wikipedia. If you want to claim that the existance of pro-Nazi facism in Egypt is a fringe theory, back up that claim with sources. I thought this was completely mainstream, although little known.

Oddly enough, I see the section I wrote on Egypt is virtually the only one referenced on this page. The WIKI guidelines for references is: “All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books.” Best sources are defined this way: Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.[4] ...All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." Two of my four references meet the highest criteria of a university press. A third got rave reviews from university presses. The opinion is not at all fringe. I believe it is the majority view. At the very least, it is a significant minority view. Therefore it belongs in WIKI.

These were my sources: 1. ^ Matthias Küntzel, Islamist terrorism and antisemitism: The mission against modernity,This paper was first presented at Stanford University, Palo Alto, March 10, 2008 under the auspices of the University’s Department of Comparative Literature, Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME) and the Forum of Contemporary Europe at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies. Kuntzel is a professor in Hamburg, Germany and gives talks on this topic to Ivy League Schools in America and the American Holocaust Museum. In short, he is a highly respected, mainstream expert in this field. He has a new book out in 2008 called Jihad and Jew-Hatred. Here is the NY Times review: The German scholar Matthias Kuentzel . . . takes anti-Semitism, and in particular its most potent current strain, Muslim anti-Semitism, very seriously indeed. His bracing, even startling, book, Jihad and Jew-Hatred (translated by Colin Meade), reminds us that it is perilous to ignore idiotic ideas if these idiotic ideas are broadly, and fervently, believed. . . . Kuentzel is right to state that we are witnessing a terrible explosion of anti-Jewish hatred in the Middle East, and he is right to be shocked. His invaluable contribution, in fact, is his capacity to be shocked, by the rhetoric of hate and by its consequences. The former Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi once told me that "the question is not what the Germans did to the Jews, but what the Jews did to the Germans." The Jews, he said, deserved their punishment. Kuentzel argues that we should see men like Rantisi for what they are: heirs to the mufti, and heirs to the Nazis. --Jeffrey Goldberg, New York Times

Morse is a journalist. You probably could make a case that he is not as good a source as Kuntzel. If you want me to find other resources for the information I got from his book, I can do that. P. 33 references the popularity of the song, “In Heaven, Allah. On earth, Hitler.” I have an academic reference for the same song which I can include instead. It is described in that source as being popular throughout the Arab world during the war, which I took to include Egypt, as the most populous Arab country and one where Nazism was particularly popular. 3. ^ Bostom, Andrew, ed.. The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism:From Sacred Texts to Solemn History. Prometheus Books, 2008 .

Andrew Bostom, M.D., an associate professor of Medicine at Brown University Medical School, who has become an expert on Islamism since 9/11, with numerous published articles and an important book. His book has been widely and favorably reviewed by very reputable experts. His POV may be disagreeable to you, but it does not make it fringe or unreliable – it is representing one valid POV, If you don’t like it, balance it with good references proving his facts wrong. Reviews of his book from Amazon: Steven T. Katz, Director, Elie Wiesel Center for Judaic Studies, Boston University, and author of Post-Holocaust Dialogues (1984), and The Holocaust in Historical Context (1994) "The publication of the present anthology...is a ground breaking event of major scholarly, cultural, and political significance....Everyone interested in Jewish and Islamic history, as well as current events in the Middle East should read this book--and soon."

Victor Davis Hanson, Senior Fellow, The Hoover Institution, Stanford University, author of Carnage and Culture (2001), and A War Like No Other (2005) "Andrew Bostom produces a vast literature of Middle Eastern Islamic antisemitism, and critics may be as surprised at his conclusions as they are unable to refute his carefully compiled corpus of evidence."

Martin Gilbert, official biographer of Winston Churchill, and author of Never Again: A History of the Holocaust, (2000), and The Jews of Arab Lands: Their History in Maps, (1976) "Stimulating and informative: a fascinating and disturbing voyage of historical discovery...It is magnificent."

Ilan Stavans, Lewis-Sebring Professor in Latin American and Latino Culture & Five-College 40th Anniversary Professor, Amherst College, author of The Disappearance: A Novella and Stories, and editor of The Schocken Book of Modern Sephardic Literature and The Scroll and the Cross: 1,000 Years of Jewish-Hispanic Literature. "For years scholars focused almost exclusively on the roots of Christian and secular antisemitism to understand the animosity targeted toward Jews in Western civilization during more than two millennia. But there's a parallel tradition, one far more explosive today: Islamic antisemitism and anti-Zionism. September 11, 2001 fostered a new age of conflict based on it. It's crucial that we don't shy away from analyzing its misconceptions, its history and strategies. Postponing such exploration is not only foolish but dangerous. Andrew Bostom offers a wide-ranging sampler of readings to start the task, from the Qur'an itself and the early biographers of Muhammad to the pre-modern theologians and jurists, and onwards to the major articulators of discontent in the modern era. His eye-opening anthology should become an essential resource."

Richard L Rubenstein, President Emeritus University of Bridgeport; Lawton Distinguished Professor of Religion Emeritus, Florida State University; Author, After Auschwitz, The Cunning of History, and Jihad and Genocide: The Nuclear Dimension (forthcoming) "[A] priceless, indispensable, and authoritative resource which is being made available when it is most needed.

Dr. Michael Ledeen, author of Universal Fascism (1972), and most recently, The Iranian Time Bomb (2007) "Andrew Bostom has performed a rare and welcome service with the publication of The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism. He has patiently assembled an enormous body of primary sources that document the brutal Jew-hatred that has characterized much of Islamic culture from its earliest days. The book's importance goes far beyond the historical record, for it shows convincingly that the fledgling movement--and widespread Western hopes--to reform Islam, and imbue it with anything approaching true toleration, faces enormous obstacles."

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, author of Infidel (2007), and The Caged Virgin (2006) "Andrew Bostom's book is timely and instructive in educating all who wish to learn the roots of Islamic Antisemitism. It is one of the most important books of our time and should be read by all." 4. ^ kuntzel, 2008, pp. 5-7 5. ^ )Herf, Jeffrey. The Jewish Enemy: Nazi Propaganda during World War II and the Holocaust. P. 179Belknap Press, 2006, ISBN-10: 0674021754 Herf is an unimpeachable reference. He is professor of history at Brandeis University; his book was published by Harvard University Press. Professor Herf's research and publications examine Europe and Germany's political culture over the breaks and continuities of the twentieth century. In spring 2006, Harvard University Press published his fourth book, The Jewish Enemy: Nazi Propaganda During World War II and the Holocaust. The work examines the Nazi regime's radical anti-Semitic propaganda as a bundle of hatreds, an explanatory framework, and effort to legitimate mass murder. His first book, Reactionary Modernism: Technology, Culture and Politics in Weimar and the Third Reich (Cambridge University Press, 1984) has become a standard work and was published in Greek, Italian, Japanese, Portuguese and Spanish translation. 6. ^ Morse, Chuck. The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism: Adolf Hitler and Haj Amin al-Husseini. iUniverse Inc., 2003. p.33 7. ^ http://www.terrorismawareness.org/files/NaziRoots.pdf. Meir-Levi, David. The Nazi Roots of Palestinian Nationalism and Islamic Jihad. Meir-levi is also an academic. He taught Archaeology and Near Eastern History at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and at the University of Tel Aviv.

The existence of pro-facist movements in the Middle East is a terrbly important part of history, since it is part of the present day sitution we are all facing. It is crucial that it be included in this article. I will be adding sections on other countries in the Middle East as well, so if you want to dispute it, please line up some reputable references yourself, and begin in the talk page, not by undoing my referenced work. --Cimicifugia (talk) 03:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Cimicifugia

" Between 1932 and 1941, the German embassy in Iraq, headed by Dr. Fritz Groebe, successfully promoted Nazi antisemitism and fascism among Egypt’s Arabs." - The Germans, as did all major powers during the war, utilized their diplomatic missions around the world to mobilize support for their side in the war. Nothing remarkable about this, and it is not indicative of any nazi/fascist movement inside the Egyptian society.

" Al-Fatwa, a youth organization based upon the model of the Hitler Youth", the reference given is Farhud, a self-reference to wikipedia. The passage is not referenced in the Farhud article. moreover this was an organization in Iraq.

The passage "Nazism held a genuine appeal for the Arab populace, who were attracted to its messages of resentment, Jew-hating, revenge, rejection of democracy, anti-communism, and recovery of past military glory." is, in spite of being referenced by an 'academic', racist titled.

Is the Küntzel article you refer to this one? That article does not back up the claim "Nazism held a genuine appeal for the Arab populace, who were attracted to its messages of resentment, Jew-hating, revenge, rejection of democracy, anti-communism, and recovery of past military glory"

Küntzel's article accuses the Muslim Brotherhood of anti-semitism and makes some generally guilt-by-association comparisons between Islamism and nazism. But his text cannot be used to claim that the Muslim Brotherhood was a fascist movement.

Morse, Chuck, p. 33. is used as a reference in several places. Interestingly, p. 33 does not mention Egypt. Needless to say, the book by Morse is hardly a neutral observation.

Herf, Jeffrey. The Jewish Enemy: Nazi Propaganda during World War II and the Holocaust. Belknap Press, 2006, ISBN-10: 0674021754 on page 179 does not mention Egypt or the wider Muslim world at all. It makes reference to a letter and a speech by the Mufti al-Husseini. It gives no backing at all to the claims made by User:Cimicifugia in the article text.

The long block quote, as misused as a block quote could be, is not only grossly pov but also a copyvio.

A final question to User:Cimicifugia; how do you select your sources? It seems unlikely that you've gone through a representative sample of academic litterature on WWII and Middle East politics. Rather you have wanted to push through your own pov, and adding a number of fringe sources in a seemingly random manner. Please read WP:NOT and WP:SOAP for further guidance of how wikipedia works. --Soman (talk) 07:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Soman - I will take some time to think aobut your detailed points and incorporate them to improve this piece. Thanks for your good work. Re the Topic as a whole. It is a mainstream theory. With the exception of Morse, where I accept your challege, the references are academic writers and/or presses, reviewed favorably in mainstream press, etc. It is not a fringe theory. Please give some references to back up your personal dislike of this information. I do not need to do a survey of WWII literature to make a contribution. I just need to make a validly referenced and NPOV contribution. If you have alternate valid information, please do add it. I believe in presenting both points of view on any debated topic. Add, don't subtract.--Cimicifugia (talk) 15:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Cimicifugia

checked on Soapbox guidelines. "Opinion pieces on current affairs or politics. Although current affairs and politics may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced so as to put entries, especially for current affairs, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete."

I don't see how trying to cover fascism in Egypt violates this rule. I am not advocating anything, I am trying to inform. I am respecting guidelines re neatral pov and valid refernces, and am quite willing to improve the article to bring it up to the highest standards. Is there some message between the lines, from you Soman? I don't feel I've really understood your objections. Name calling like 'fringe' and 'racist' isn't helpful. I don't even know what you mean. Historical data about important things that really happened belong in Wikipedia, no? Giving the motiviations for facism among pro-Hitler Egyptians before and during WWII ("resentment, Jew-hating, revenge, rejection of democracy, anti-communism, and recovery of past military glory") is not racist - facism is very international phenomenon - these very adjectives could be applied to Germany and probably many or most of the countries on this page. It is invalid to exclude the Middle East with cries of 'racism' or putting quotes around 'academic' as if Kuntzel doesn't qualify as a highly reputable, verifiable source.--Cimicifugia (talk) 15:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Cimicifugia.

The key here is to keep to the core subject of the article. Fascism did have an impact in Middle East politics, and there were pro-fascist movements which emerged in several regions. I introduced a section on Lebanon, but would like to have help with sources there. There is also debate to what extent Kemalism and Baathism were inspired by fascism, academic differ on these issues. The main problem with your sources is that they all have the same line, namely trying to label present-day political movements such as Muslim Brotherhood or Palestinian organizations as nazis, a cheap trick to push the debate on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I read through Küntzel's text, and I my own impression is that if you'd substitute 'Arab' for 'Jew' and 'Jew' for 'German', it would have fitted as a column in Der Stürmer. It seeks every guilt-by-association possible to prove that Arabs carry a collective guilt and, implicitly, deserves to be punished in the present day era. --Soman (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Another point for discussion; one of Küntzel's main points is the link between Nazism and the anti-modernist positions of the Islamist movements. This is a quite titled understanding of history. The appeal of Nazism and Fascism in the Middle East was not anti-modernist, but highly modernist, seeking modern national identities and statebuilding projects (Falange in Lebanon, Kemalism in Turkey, SUMKA in Iran, etc.), in direct opposition to the old clerical rule and the more general concept of Ummah. --Soman (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Soman, it doesn't matter what you think, does it? Wiki is not here to represent your attitudes. If the sources are scholarly, and published by legitimate publishings houses or even better, academic presses, such as Harvard, they are good enough for WIKI. I am not required to put in all POV - that's why wiki is a collaborative effort. I'll put in my legitimate references, and if want to balance with an opposing POV, put in yours. A page on international facism that has nothing on the Middle East is biased and incomplete.--Cimicifugia (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)cimicifugia

Is having a militaristic uniform of a youth group in the 1930s enough for inclusion?

Does it matter what you think? You're conducting major OR, writing your own rants and then attaching random quotes to give the impression that you have an academic backing for your claims. I do not oppose mentioning fascist/pro-fascist movements in the Middle East in this article, on the contrary I welcome it. You however, seek only to portray a quite far-fetched pov, namely that there is a direct and undisputable link between the 1930s Nazism and Arab political thinking today. There are academics who, for whatever reasons, agree with you. But as you can read from the al-Husseini article, that is not the mainstream viewpoint.

This article is, not only relating to the Middle East, a POV minefield. I think its important that it doesn't become a listing of whatever group that has ever been accused of fascism. Such a listing would have no encyclopediatic value. Rather, it must be limited to relatively uncontroversial cases, were the linkage to fascism is not disputed. You might be aware that there are many other movements,

If you are able to cough up references that point to actual existence of fascist movements in whatever country, I would be happy to take part in improving such passages. --Soman (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I deleted everything regarding Nederlandsche Unie, it does not belong in here. The Unie is not regarded as a fascist organisation, it had liberal-conservative origins and positioned itself against the national socialist NSB. It was forbidden because it did not support the invasion of the USSR by Germany. While it did some compromises, Wichert ten Have, for example, author of the book "De Nederlandse Unie – Aanpassing, vernieuwing en confrontatie in bezettingstijd 1940–1941", does not see the Nederlandsche Unie as fascist. Others like Gerhard Hirschfeld, who wrote about the German occupation of the Netherlands, do not see them as fascist, too. There is simply no consensus for that, quite the contrary. --Marcus Schätzle (talk) 01:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: movedPeter Karlsen (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Greetings, I wrote an article about this in 2004, with citations, which I'd like to add to Wikipedia. I'm thinking it's a bit too long for a section in here, and could be a separate article? I've added a link to "external links" here; you can also go directly to http://radicalreference.info/node/460